shawnbeightol.com Blog

Can a Hechinger Report Affiliated Education Journalist Objectively Cover Criticisms of Miami ‘s Race to the Top Initiatives?

I question whether Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ Teacher Contract was unethically changed to bring Miami-Dade County Public Schools into Federal Race to the Top Compliance.

I also question whether the Hechinger Report associated journalist assigned to cover the story can objectively write about it when Hechingers main financial support comes from 2 institutions with a history of financially investing in the successful implementation of RTTT’s elements.

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I am a 19 year chemistry teacher for Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) and over the years as an advocate for professional teachers, a frequent source and contributor to the Miami Herald’s coverage of Miami-Dade’s education “scene.”

Though the application and build-up was gradual, this school year’s sudden introduction of the particulars of MDCPS’ Federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program to educators was quite a shock. It involved a dramatic overhaul of the Teacher Evaluation model called IPEGS and is affecting all of our teaching/curriculum – as one blogger for the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) has said “we are all reading teachers now.” It was presented with little warning or dialogue from either our employer or our union, the UTD. It was presented via a mandatory information saturated video presentation August 19th during our 2nd day back on the job, just before the school doors opened to our students (i.e., the busiest time of the year).

It was presented as though the new IPEGS evaluation system were a “done deal.”

It caused an uproar as the majority of teachers for MDCPS found that 50% of our evaluation in the upcoming year would be based NOT on our work, but on the work of reading teachers and how seriously a student took a reading test – we are to be evaluated based on the school average of student reading proficiency gains.

Which means an art teacher, a calculus teacher, a special education teacher, a chemistry teacher, a geometry teacher, a civics teacher, an AP English teacher, an AP Psychology teacher (etc…) would now be judged 50% on the basis of kids most of whom they never see and how well their reading improved…a factor beyond our control.

Many of us were incensed and took to the social media and email to discuss this. Via conversation amongst ourselves and our employer and some of the independent “rebel” union shop stewards, we determined that this change to our evaluation system should be ratified by bargaining unit membership since these specifics described above actually exceeded the terms spelled out in the newly amended Florida Statute 1012.34.

Yet no word was out on the ratification or voting on the changes. No union townhall meetings were held. No communiques went out. Just an email August 19th from the UTD telling us when we could be trained in the new IPEGS evaluation system…as though it were a done deal.

It was only after activist teachers began organizing a legal challenge via public communication on Facebook (where 2 current UTD governing board members on the current UTD president’s cabinet were observed to be “lurking”) that UTD sent out a late email August 24th announcing the date of the ratification and the weblink where the vote could be cast…with little explanation as to the very important changes being made to the IPEGS evaluation system. Rather, much was made of what was essentially a “carrot” to incentivize those paying attention to vote in the changes – $14 million in “performance pay” was offered for the affirmative vote but would likely be lost for a “No” vote.

This was the only announcement made by UTD and it fell far short of the legally required notification for a union contract changing vote.

Legal challenges were filed with the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) and found sufficient to try UTD for violating State Law against Unfair Labor Practices that involve a union manipulating and coercing employees with respect to their right to have a fair vote on contract changes. Legal challenges were also filed with the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami and found sufficiently significant to warrant an emergency hearing scheduled and held September 16th, 2011.

Funds were raised and petitions were circulated by hundreds of educators. Hundreds of pages of statements and supporting documents were collected and compiled into the legal challenges.

The Miami Herald was approached in an effort to publicize what surely must be seen as a matter significant to the public.

Yet in the 3 articles that the Miami Herald published in the last month about the changes to the MDCPS IPEGS evaluation system and the associated performance pay, the Miami Herald’s Hechinger Affiliated reporter reduced all of the controversy and the twenty thousand deliberately underinformed yet now aggravated teachers’ voices to the oversimplified and understated “One teacher has challenged the ratification with a state commission.”

This is after spending an hour on the phone with her explaining the surrounding issues and much of the following supporting documentation that I hope the Miami Herald or some other news agency will investigate. After connecting the Miami Herald’s Hechinger Affiliated Education Reporter with many professional educators known for their educational leadership and activism, all of our concerns and activism regarding this evaluation system that many, many teachers view as ludicrous, she boils it all down to “a complaint” of “one teacher.”

It was only after a second critical email to her that I found out the Miami Herald’s Education Reporter is connected with the Hechinger Report, an outgrowth of the prestigious and laudable Teachers College at Columbia University, but of recent has come under scrutiny for manipulating news organs (see http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=2445 and http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=1682 ). Further reading reveals that the Hechinger Report was funded with seed money and continues to receive support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation. According to the Hechinger website, the Gates Foundation is concerned with “the use of federal money at state and local levels through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)” – in other words, Race to the Top programs.

Dianne Ravitch wrote of the Gates Foundation that it is “usually portrayed as liberal or at least Democratic, [but its] funding priorities have merged with those of the very conservative Walton Family Foundation. I explain this curious power elite in a chapter of my book called ‘The Billionaire Boys Club.’” http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/jun/10/obamas-right-wing-school-reform/ See also http://jaypgreene.com/2011/07/25/gates-foundation-follies-part-1/ , see also http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=1527

Furthermore, The objectivity of the Lumina Foundation is also suspect. They were a “Chairman” level sponsor of the 2011 Annual Conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)($50,000 in 2010, $295,000 for 2011?) -
see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lumina_Foundation_for_Education also see “Additional Grants”
http://www.luminafoundation.org/newsroom/news_releases/2010-11-30.html

Regardless of the suspicions of bias and skewed objectivity as a function/consequence of institutional funding pressure, the evidence that objectivity has been sacrificed is before our very eyes, as I have already recounted above.

The concerns and criticisms of how the nation’s 4th largest school district and the 2nd largest employer in Florida, Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ Race to the Top grant strategy involving the acquisition of $72 million dollars through questionable manipulation of Florida’s Collective Bargaining process rises above “a complaint” of “one teacher.”

Beyond questions of illegally and insufficiently advertised union votes, the use of unverifiable and already legally challenged Electronic Internet voting, interference in Florida’s Collective Bargaining process, and possible fraudulent usage of Race to the Top “performance pay” to reward financially starving educators for ratifying their insufficiently explained contract changes, what about the overall impact of the policies, strategies, and market forces on the curriculum the children are being served in the wake of these changes?

In the Miami Herald’s Hechinger Affiliated Education Reporter’s email defending her position, she says she thinks the “general readers want to know what it means going forward.” I can tell you – the general readers whose children are losing the breadth of education that comes with academically free professional educators as imposed testing narrows their curricular focus are going to regret this great educational experiment. The general readers who are parents of children in Miami-Dade whose teachers shift the focus of curriculum from the analytical thinking and problem solving skills associated with photography, civics, geometry, calculus, poetry, chemistry etc to READING are going to be upset when their children demonstrate a deficit in the corresponding skills that have been neglected as teachers “pimp” themselves out curricularly for a shot at increased performance pay for skills not covered by their state course descriptions.

Short link: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=205

There were 2 successive changes to the Miami-Dade teachers’ (and clerical/support staff) contract this summer (2011) – one in June and one in August, both in the last and first weeks of a school year, respectively. The busiest time of the year for teachers. This issue (busyness) in conjunction with several other factors (dealing with the Florida Statutes on Union contract ratification notification to the membership) alerted several teachers to something being suspicious. We have filed 2 Unfair Labor Practice complaints with the organization authorized and tasked with mediating and oversight of Florida ‘s public employees, employers, and unions – the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). The complaints have been found sufficient to warrant a hearing over the allegations that the teachers’ union violating Florida Statutes 447.501 (2)(a) – Unfair Labor Practices involving manipulation and coercion of employees with respect to their rights (to have proper notice and time to consider changes to their contract – see (http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=073/File=CB11073-Ord2-091911140300.pdf and http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=076/File=CB11076-Ord2-091911140357.pdf ).

Pertinent facts to my allegations with respect to the RTTT funds fraudulent misuse:

1. MDCPS employees represented by UTD (teachers & support staff) are the only public school educators in Florida who have not received a raise in the last 2 years (Broward was the other at the time of the writing of the Special Magistrates report, but has since received a raise. See the Special Magistrate’s report, page 25: http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=SM/CaseYr=10/CaseNo=100/File=SM10100-SMRD-051911080458.pdf ).

2. #1 above, combined with the 2011 double hit of increased healthcare costs and the newly imposed 3% employee contribution to Florida’ Public Employees’ Pension led the Special Magistrate in May 2011 to recommend a 1% “one-time, non-recurring percentage salary increase” for UTD represented employees (see Special Magistrate’s Recommended Decision referenced in #1 above, page 21 – point 2); page 24 – point 5), and page 28 – 1^st paragraph, above Conclusion).

3. June 3 – 7, UTD conducts a contract changing ratification vote via electronic voting on their website described as “Protects Jobs and Insurance,” but fails to mention that it also declines the contractual automatic raise (step increase) for members. The ratification vote has been challenged in PERC and assigned case number CB11076 as mentioned above. Evidence of insufficient advertising includes, among other indisputable facts, the number of alleged participants in the vote – less than 4,000 of the 27,700 members.

4. July 1, 2011, Florida’s “Student Success Act” (aka, Senate Bill 736) becomes law, requiring up to 50% of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student performance data from approved assessment instruments (latitude exists for educators with students not measured by state approved assessment instruments to have less than 50% of their evaluation based on locally approved – School Improvement Plan-based and Principal approved – instruments).

5. July 9, 2011, MDCPS produces a training video about the new teacher evaluation model (IPEGS) that is slated to be implemented in School Year 2011-2012. It is shown to most UTD unit members on the 2^nd day back to school at a mandatory viewing August 19^th, 2011 (most because support staff and many counselors were excluded). It is described as being necessary to be compliant with SB 736/F.S. 1012.34. It introduces the formula that shows all MDCPS educators to be evaluated at the 50% level upon student performance data – those with students measured by state approved assessment instruments (FCAT related) and also those for whom no state approved assessment instrument is available. For the latter group, it is explained that school wide reading proficiency gains will be used, a measure that is legally permitted, but exceeds the minimum requirements of SB 736 and thus, subject to UTD ratification. The video not only does NOT indicate this, but repeatedly and deceptively portrays this is a requirement of SB 736 and the consequently amended F.S. 1012.34 (see the video script at http://ipegs.dadeschools.net/pdfs/IPEGS_Update.pdf , pages 2, 3, & 8. Also note that throughout the video/script, especially pages 22-24, the language “pending UTD unit member ratification” should have been included. Rather, by MDCPS juxtaposing the language “Use school-wide reading proficiency and learning gains” to the constantly quoted F.S. 1012.34 leaves the information-saturated viewer with the conclusion that the changes are simple compliance with statutory changes and are NOT subject to the viewers ratification – which is NOT the case). The deceptive message of this video mandatorily viewed by all teachers should be judged as much on effect as on the logically deconstructed content – teachers viewing this video BELIEVED the IPEGS changes to the extent described were a necessary consequence of SB 736, they did not realize that because the IPEGS terms exceeded SB 736 requirements in the details that they should be given opportunity to ratify the excessive terms.

6. August 19^th, 2011, UTD publishes without advertising to the unit membership a series of links on its webpage (http://www.utd.org/news/race-to-the-top-ratification-vote-august-29-august-31 ) describing the significant changes to the teacher contract as “Race to the Top Ratification Vote” but no where mentions that the changes to the teacher evaluation model IPEGS are actually the bulk of the vote material. Rather, UTD misleadingly describes the significant contract language changes to the IPEGS system as primarily a means to obtaining $14 million in RTTT funds for the 2010 year performance (see http://www.utd.org/file_download/448/RTTT-OpenletterfromKarenA8-19-11.pdf and http://www.utd.org/file_download/447/RTTT-Yes-No8-19-11.pdf ).

7. August 19^th, 2011, UTD emails teachers an invitation to a series of training meetings on the “IPEGS procedures and changes for the 2011-2012 school year.” The meetings are scheduled, planned and 3 are conducted BEFORE the ratification vote is held as though the ratification is either not necessary or the conclusion of the yet unannounced ratification is foregone (http://shawnbeightol.com/UTDIPEGSTrainingfor2011-2012.pdf ).

8. August 19^th, 2011, UTD publishes on its website without advertising to the unit membership the link called “Click here for Contract Ratification Language ,” an excerpt from the 2009-2012 collective bargaining agreement between UTD and MDCPS. The excerpt is Article XIII: Evaluation, 8 pages of description of how teachers will be evaluated. Approximately 50% of the language is crossed out with little or no replacement text. Only the vague reference to the IPEGS Procedural Handbook is made with no explanation as to how to find or access it. Furthermore, tacked on to the end of the 8 pages of Article XIII are 2 pages from MDCPS’ post-facto application for 2010-2011 Performance Pay (see http://shawnbeightol.com/2010-11PerfPayProp.pdf ) – the fact that the content of which had never been seen before by MDCPS teachers coupled with the disjunctive nature of the material (terms of Performance Pay for the past year gone by attached without transition or explanation to the terms of the upcoming years’ proposed changes to the contract language based teacher evaluation system (IPEGS)) and the language used to describe the vote “What a “YES” vote means: • $14 million from last year’s Race to the Top grant funds will be distributed to teachers in the UTD Bargaining Unit” (RTTT-Yes-No document given in #6 above) suggests that the ratification vote had little to do with ratifying clearly understood significant changes to contract language and work conditions and more to do with enticing financially starved employees (see #s 1-2 above) to accept without analysis or criticism the significant changes in return for a few hundred dollars each under the guise of “Performance Pay.” See below (appendix A) for criticism of this so called “Performance Pay.”

9. Between August 19^th and August 29^th, 2011, concerned and watchful teachers begin inquiring into the IPEGS changes with both the MDCPS and UTD personnel. Upon realization by August 22^nd, 2011 (the first day of school) that a ratification vote SHOULD be conducted, activist teachers begin collecting evidence of what appears to have been intended as an unnoticed ratification vote (allowing a select group of bargaining unit members to participate “by invitation only”). UTD executive board members observed “lurking around” the social media conversation (UTD’s board members Steve Goldman and Tom Lander on Facebook) are speculated to be the cause for #10:

10. August 24^th, 2011, UTD puts out an email to teachers via school email announcing the ratification vote. The email contains no explanatory information other than links to the information listed above in #6. The email is sent 2 business days before the vote (though UTD had signed the agreement months earlier, though UTD had sent 2 other emails on 8/19/11 – one regarding professional leave, the other regarding the ratification related IPEGS training described in #7 above). The email lacks the minimum language required by Florida law to announce a union ratification vote (see CB11073 http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=073/File=CB11073-Ord2-091911140300.pdf ). The email is sent during the busiest week of school. The email is not sent to the entire bargaining unit as required by Florida law on union ratification votes (see CB11073 and FAC 60CC-4.002, see https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?id=60CC-4.002 ). No other public notification of the vote is given as described in FAC 60CC-4.002. As the vote is scheduled to be conducted by Evote from the UTD website, no ballots are mailed or distributed, no polling stations are set up in the employee workplace. The effect is that only those UTD members who are “in the loop” and sufficiently motivated will be aware of the ratification, and few will actually know the extent of the changes pending ratification beyond the obtainment of “performance pay.” See http://shawnbeightol.com/karensinsufficientnoticeemail.pdf

11. No other discussion or fulfillment is known of the Special Magistrate’s recommendation (#2 above) to provide UTD bargaining unit members with a one time salary increase. Furthermore, the application of Federal RTTT funds to teachers a) fails to fulfill the Special Magistrate’s recommendation in that it does nothing for the support staff that are also in the bargaining unit and b) represents a misuse of the assumed intention of “performance pay” – pay offered to “incentivize” a particular work behavior/production (see Appendix A) according to predetermined criteria. MDCPS utilizes Federal RTTT funds under the guise of performance pay to fulfill a recommendation proceeding from the Special Magistrate consequent to an Impasse Hearing of the Collective Bargaining process. The recommendation is for a no-strings attached one-time percentage salary increase since MDCPS teachers are the only teachers in Florida who have not had a raise in the last 2 years but have been subjected to cost of living increases and a new 3% reduction in salary for pension contributions (see #’s 1-3 above).

12. I question if the use of Federal Race to the Top funds as so called 2010-2011 “Performance” Pay is rather an improper bribe/enticement used by MDCPS and UTD to ensure the passage of the necessary changes to the collective bargaining agreement which exceed the minimum terms of SB 736 in order to bring about MDCPS compliance with the RTTT application/scope of work in order that MDCPS may access the $72 million in Federal RTTT funds. Furthermore, as described in #11, aren’t these Federal RTTT funds also being used, not as true performance pay, but to avoid non-compliance with the Special Magistrates recommendation for a no-strings attached (i.e., NOT performance pay) salary increase?



shortlink: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=198

A couple questions regarding Miami-Dade County Public School ’s September 23rd distribution of “Performance Pay”:

1) How can it be performance pay if the performance measurements aren’t expressed ahead of time?

Performance Pay is described as

a) In the medical field, “a system of reimbursement that pays clinicians bonuses based on predetermined performance measures” - http://www.p4presearch.org/node/36 , or

b) Again, in the medical field, “Financial rewards (or penalties) for meeting or failing to meet predetermined quality measures are expected to lead to improved quality of care” – http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&CONTENTID=30254&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

c) In Agriculture, “based on a specific accomplishment-reward connection understood by both management and workers,” “workers understand ahead of time the precise relationship between performance and the incentive reward,” “specific circumstances for eliminating incentives should be clearly related to the incentive and articulated ahead of time,” “tell employees how much they are earning…[they] did not find out what the piece rate was until the end … when they got paid,” workers must show “complete understanding of quality issues ahead of time…,” and “At minimum, all workers need to know what is expected of them and how their performance will translate into pay. It helps when the incentive plan is presented to workers for review and comments before implementation” – http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7labor/08.pdf

and

d) In Business in general, “A clear system of performance appraisal, with defined criteria that are understood by the employee and regularly scheduled meetings must be in place.” – http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Di-Eq/Employee-Compensation.html

2) If it is “performance pay,” why wasn’t it announced ahead of time – both the amount and the criteria for earning it?

3) If it is “performance pay,” why do the recently revealed terms of MDCPS’ “performance pay” defy industry practice? Consider “Employees must have control over their performance. If employees are overly dependent on the actions and output of other employees or processes, they may have little control over their own performance” – http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Di-Eq/Employee-Compensation.html How is it, for example, that Ferguson Science teachers worked SO hard last year to bring up Ferguson Science Scores (see the Herald at http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/06/2254308/dade-students-see-science-fcat.html ), yet were evaluated secretly (it wasn’t announced ahead of time) that science teachers evaluations for “performance pay” would be based on average MATH scores: “The Mathematics/Science teachers are eligible if the school improves in Mathematics proficiency, increases the percent of student showing learning gains, or increases in performance for students in the lowest 25 percent” – http://racetothetop.dadeschools.net/

4) If it is “performance pay” for 2010-2011, what is it doing TACKED on to the 2011-2012 Contract language change regarding Teacher Evaluations for the upcoming year? Did someone accidentally “virtual” staple it to the wrong “virtual” document? Why wasn’t it voted on separately from the 2011-2012 Contract change? What is its function there? What performance is it measuring? Is it really a reward for teachers (those that knew) voting in the excessive strict evaluation model called IPEGS? See last two pages of http://www.utd.org/file_download/451/RTTTContractRatificationVote8-22-11.pdf . The language used here (http://www.utd.org/file_download/447/RTTT-Yes-No8-19-11.pdf ) suggests that voting affirmative on the UTD Evote page is a vote to get bonus pay when in fact this is just money that Florida Public Employees Relations Commission’s Special Magistrate recommended delivering to educators already (with NO strings attached) ) – see #’s 5 & 7 below.

In fact, the affirmative vote on UTD’s Evote page actually delivers a change in the contract language to the Teacher Evaluation model (IPEGS) that is more strict, more extreme than what Florida’s newly modified statute (1012.34) requires (modified by Senate Bill 736 in July 2011). This change now makes MDCPS eligible to participate in the Federal Race to the Top program and gains MDCPS $72 MILLION. This change couldn’t have occurred without teacher/support staff voting it in, highly unlikely had it been properly explained and advertised since it puts excessive restrictions/stress on teachers in their evaluation and does NOTHING for support staff. Furthermore, the superficial mentioning of IPEGS here (http://www.utd.org/file_download/447/RTTT-Yes-No8-19-11.pdf ) suggests that the terms of the IPEGS changes are provided in the proposed contract changes, but they are NOT (see http://www.utd.org/file_download/451/RTTTContractRatificationVote8-22-11.pdf ). Rather, the changes proposed are simply “crossed-out” terms from the original. The employee is told nowhere of the actual changes and would only know if he/she studied the misleading MDCPS video presentation that on August 19th, 2011 outlined the IPEGS changes as though they were already in place, already ratified (see http://ipegs.dadeschools.net/pdfs/IPEGS_Update.pdf ). Therefore, upon analysis of the language UTD used to describe the ratification vote, the manner it was advertised and conducted, one can only conclude that the Aug 29-31 ratification vote was to deliver a bonus for the performance of affirming the insufficiently advertised/noticed and under-explained IPEGS contract language change.

5) If it isn’t “performance pay,” what is it? MDCPS likes to crow that MDCPS is the “only county in Florida that gave performance pay for 2010.” Could it be that it is actually MDCPS’ tricky method of complying with the Special Magistrate’s directive to give employees “something” (pp. 21 & 24), since MDCPS is actually the only District that has NOT moved its educators along their steps (raises) for the last 2 years? Consider: “It will also be the only District [in Florida ]…to not receive an increase in two out of the last three years” – http://www.utd.org/file_download/370/PERC+M-DCPS+and+UTD+SM-2010-100+Decision+5-11.pdf

6) Is it “fair” and legal (under collective bargaining) for the inequitable criteria used to discriminate between teachers on the same salary schedule, with the same evaluation model (2010 IPEGS), without published evaluation criteria? Though all teachers were theoretically eligible for “Bucket A,” only those “core content area specific and instructional staff in Reading/Language Arts/Social Studies and Math/Science” were eligible for “Bucket B,” and only “Reading/Language Arts or Math teachers” were eligible for “Bucket C,” and only “Reading/Language Arts or Math teachers” with 3 years of data were eligible for “Bucket D.” This means, apart from actual teaching performance (which had not been defined or communicated to teachers ahead of time), many teachers were only eligible for the $500 “Bucket A,” while other teachers were eligible for $26,500. In other words, the performance being rewarded secretly here was having chosen to teach a particular subject at a particular school. I don’t think this so called “performance pay” is legal in terms of collective bargaining.

7) Why isn’t MDCPS capable of fulfilling its obligation to provide the “support for teachers [, which] is vital if the public expects them to produce quality education…It’s an obligation that Florida citizens even placed in their constitution in Article IX, Section 1: ‘[T]he education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. . . . . Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain high quality education….’ This ‘high quality’ is seen, for example, by a top 5 ranking given to Florida schools. Making and keeping it that way for the welfare of the citizens of Miami-Dade County is obviously the ongoing responsibility of the District (pp. 20 & 21, http://www.utd.org/file_download/370/PERC+M-DCPS+and+UTD+SM-2010-100+Decision+5-11.pdf )”

Aside from financial cuts, which have affected ALL other counties in Florida, including the 7 other urban districts (“The ‘global economic crisis’ cannot be the sole answer to everything that faces the District….their counterparts in other school districts have received…something”), what has MDCPS been doing with the money? Could it have something to do with the huge and criticized investment of the district in SAP/Enterprise software? (see http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/miami-dade-school-district-and-deloitte-endless-money-pit/1226 ). You might say that’s 2 years old…yeah, but so is the implementation. We are just now seeing SAP implementation of the payroll data on our employee portals. How bad is it? Is it related to the numerous law suits and complaints being filed by fired MDCPS employees? (see http://itslawsuit.wordpress.com/page/2/ ).

Regardless as to my limited speculation as to why, there must be a reason why 66 other counties can deliver the requisite increases to pay for teachers in Florida all affected by the same funding formula and the same economy.

I guess my final question is, why isn’t the media interested in this loose accountability with Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds in a political and economic climate such as this one where conservatives are rightfully clamoring against poorly accounted public grants and bailouts…and our own MDCPS seems to be playing fast and loose with ARRA Race to the Top funds to bailout their inability to invest in their teachers?

“How can it be performance pay?” It is…but the performance it rewards is the deceptive ratification of a Teacher Evaluation model that exceeds the requirements of Florida ’s newly amended F.S. 1012.34 (affected by July’s passage of the “Student Success Act,” Senate Bill 736). MDCPS’ excessive contract language changes exceed SB 736 because MDCPS requires immediate student performance data as 50% of all educators evaluations, even though SB 736 only required that for the educators for whom FCAT data is available. The others could be reduced to 20-40%, depending on their role. Furthermore, SB 736 provides latitude at the SCHOOL LEVEL to determine the measures of a teacher’s effectiveness (expressed in “goals of the school improvement plan and approved by the school principal”) – suggesting local input at the School Advisory Council level for choosing appropriate measure of teacher effectiveness.

Regards,

Shawn Beightol

Folks:

I stood up in the circuit court Friday to plead with the circuit court to intervene on behalf of teachers (and students whose curriculum is being reshaped by the economic incentives) on the matter of the IPEGS evaluation system.

Against me met 4-5 UTD and MDCPS lawyers.

Besides their access to legal staffs and online “case law” history (a searchable encyclopedia of previous cases…think google, without the junk), they had one thing I didn’t have and that money couldn’t buy – experience.

I did my best, as the 7 or so teachers who came and supported me will tell you (and to them: “thank you, thank you, thank you for watching my back!”

The opposition combined, filing their motions to dismiss my case at the last minute Thursday.  They filed for several reasons, but the one that they used potently was that the circuit court judge did not have jurisdiction.  They convinced the judge that this was simply a matter of a collective bargaining disagreement – the realm of PERC – Florida’s Public Employee Relations Commission.  They are set up to arbitrate/mediate/regulate between public employers, public employees, and the employee organizations (e.g. UTD).

I couldn’t seem to make the judge see that the collective bargaining aspect, the unfair labor practice part, was a separate issue to be dealt with by  PERC.  That his job was simply to recognize the merit of that action with PERC and to protect against the present threat to the teachers and children of Miami-Dade (financial and career-wise to educators, curriculum-wise to the children whose teachers are de-emphasizing state defined curriculum as we all become “reading teachers”).

The defendants (MDCPS & UTD) raised several other reasons why the case should be dismissed – they claimed there was no irreparable harm if the judge dismissed my request to intervene and the potential loss of $14 million if the judge did grant my request.  Channel 10 News caught all this on tape as they were there videoing (thank them, they were the only media that responded).

I tried to show that from the district’s own documents (see http://www.fldoe.org/arra/pdf/Dade.pdf p. 75) “the incorporation of student achievement data within teacher and principal evaluation systems [would be used] to make human capital decisions related to teachers and principals with a focus on placement and professional development support.”  That these decisions extended to “salary compensation, promotion, retention, [and] removal…” so that diverse manner of irreparable harm would occur if he did not intervene.

But the plaintiff’s objected and the judge agreed with “why is this my jurisdiction?”  to which I kept returning to this:  a) it is not collective bargaining, but the merit of my complaint about the collective bargaining that requires you to act to protect individuals from the school board’s threatened actions b) that state statutes 447.507 and 447.509 provide for circuit court injunctive relief and c) that UTD contradicts its own parent union, the FEA, who just filed a similar motion for injunctive relief IN THE SAME COURT (2nd Judicial Circuit Court – see http://www.meyerandbrooks.com/documents/Robinson%20vs%20Robinson/Robinson_v_Robinson_Complaint.pdf )

Then I attempted to come back to the $14 million – to point out that it wasn’t actually performance pay since the criteria wasn’t published before the performance – only AFTER as it was tacked on to the end of the IPEGS contract changes AND that it wasn’t budgeted for 2010-2011 performance pay (!!!! see p. 80 of http://www.fldoe.org/arra/pdf/Dade.pdf ).

But UTD/MDCPS lawyers objected and the asked the judge to rule, cutting me off, cutting off the revelation before the TV camera of this latter damaging point.

And the judge ruled to dismiss.

As quick as that.

So tomorrow I will follow the direction of the court and file a motion for injunction with the Public Employees Relations Commission.

You have the right to do this too, if you like.  You could file claiming that
1)  the vote was confusing because it lumped together the so called “performance pay” with the drastic changes to our IPEGS contract language – a combination that wasn’t explained anywhere other than the pointedly biased “YES vote-NO vote” page.

2)That the neither the union nor the district explained we were voting for a contract language change that implemented the IPEGS extreme implementation of SB 736.

3) That the vote was not advertised well or clearly.  That you did not see the single email Karen sent out 2 business days before the vote.

4) That you had no access to email or assumed the vote was only for UTD members since the email did not say “open to all members of the bargaining unit.”

5) That there wasn’t time in the first week of the school to meet with your union reps nor your employer to have your questions answered, including why/how the 2010 performance pay could/should be tacked on to IPEGS evaluation language changes, that it couldn’t be a performance incentive if it was published AFTER the evaluation criteria was changed and measured.

If you wish to do this, you can fill out PERC’s form at
http://perc.myflorida.com/forms/Form_16_-_Charge_Against_Union.pdf

and fax it to “The Clerk of PERC” at 850-488-9704

You could send in 1 complaint each school if you fax yours together with other employees from your school.  See if you can get a security guard or paraprofessional or teacher without school computer access to acknowledge in writing they didn’t see the single email sent out notifying of the ratification vote.

Be aware this is a legal step and your name will be public record that you have filed a complaint against UTD if you choose to do this.

Regards,

Shawn Beightol

Folks:

1) The court hearing regarding the injunction against the change to IPEGs is Friday, September 16, 2011: 1145 AM at the “old” courthouse in downtown Miami: 73 West Flagler St, Room 511, Miami, FL. If you want to come to show support, take a personal day and join me.  If you will testify, please message me.

2) I need financial support to cover the cost of the bond that may be required to cover the unlikely event of incurred damage costs from the injunction (see below).

Whether you are an Educator or a Concerned Citizen, this affects you.

For Public Education to work under the laws of our State of Florida, there must be a healthy adversarial negotiation and protection relationship between the Employer and the Union.  This relationship has devolved in Miami to one of unhealthy cooperation, where it seems our union, UTD has been reduced to simply the function of enacting School Board Policy upon its membership.

This summer, 2 union votes were conducted with little or no notification to the teachers and their support staff – all of whom were to be notified in advance with sufficient notice so that they could participate in each vote with informed choice.

The first vote was in early June and gave the school board permission to NOT grant employee raises to save jobs.  Nice, but it would be nicer if Educators had been informed and allowed to choose intelligently.  No official notification was provided to Educators.

The second vote occurred in August the 2nd week of school, with an incomplete email notice sent out 2 business days before the vote.  The vote combined a change to the teacher evaluation process (IPEGS) with a BONUS ($) PAYOUT plan that became the union promotional phrase for this vote “Vote YES to bonus pay.”  Most employees did not know about the vote.  Those that did thought they were voting to distribute bonus money tied to Obama’s Race to the Top Grant, a partial and incomplete truth.

Shawn Beightol (the author, me : ) has filed 2 Unfair Labor Practice complaints with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) in an attempt to overturn these illegal votes.  Shawn believes PERC will uphold the complaints and order the votes nullified.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools voted Wednesday, September 7th, 2011 to accept the results of the union vote so they could begin evaluating teachers on the new IPEGS model – a model that bases evaluation on most teachers NOT on the merit of their own individual work, but on the AVERAGE reading scores of children in their school.

Shawn Beightol has filed a Motion for Injunction with the 11th Judicial Circuit Court here in Miami against the implementation of the new IPEGS  evaluation system on the grounds that the underlying union ratification vote was illegally conducted.

See

http://shawnbeightol.com/AmendedMotionforInjunctiveordervsboardvote.pdf

In order to win the motion for injunction, Shawn will need to post a bond to cover the possibility that if the injunction is granted but PERC does not find the union election to be illegal, the School Board and Union’s expenses for the delay are covered.

I need your help to raise sufficient money to cover the cost of the bond.  There is no fixed bond amount – it is at the discretion of the judge.  If the bond money is not needed, then donors can specify if the bond money should go toward other legal fees or a charity of their choice (you could also request  a refund, minus PAYPAL’s minimal processing fee).

Two teacher colleagues are administrating a legal fund donation site on Paypal – Ceresta S. and Melissa K.  I can put you in touch with them if you need to discuss the security of the account, etc.

Here is the button for donating:

If you wish to join me at the courthouse for moral support, please meet me at 73 West Flagler St. Miami Fl by 1130 AM September 16th, 2011 and we’ll go up to the vestibule of room 511 together.  The hearing begins at 1145 AM.  If you come later than 1130 AM, take the elevators up to the 5th floor and come to the vestibule of room 511 (Judge Langer).  Stay tuned for updates in the eventuality the hearing is changed (settled out of court, delayed).

If you would like to testify to one of the following, please contact me ASAP at Beights@yahoo.com :

a) that you do not know and did not receive advance notice of the formula upon which the RTTT performance pay would be assigned for last year’s work (you would need to have been appraised of the formula BEFORE the year for it to function as MERIT pay),

b) that you have reason to believe you cannot contend for the MERIT pay on equal grounds as other teachers/employees,

c) that you will be hurt by PERC’s reversal of the union ratification vote which would result in the return of any performance monies (are you in financial difficulties and will need to pay the mortgage or something else so that upon reversal, your financial status will be jeapordized),

d) that you will be hurt by PERC’s reversal of the union ratification vote which will result in nullification of a positive evaluation based on the new IPEGS formula,

e) that you will be hurt by PERCs reversal of the union ratification vote which will come too late to correct negative consequences of a poor evaluation based on the new IPEGS formula,

or

f) that you will be hurt by the changes to IPEGS, distribution of performance pay or the reversal of these in some other manner that you can specify.

Thanks and Regards,

Shawn Beightol

Colleagues:

I need your help:
1) spread the word: UTD’s ratification vote, sold as the means to distribute Race to the Top money, also ratified (illegally) the changes to the IPEGS that are above and beyond what Senate Bill 736 requires.

2) SPREAD THE WORD – send emails, tell, print out, hand out, call your friends, PUT IT ON THE BLOGS!!!!

3) come to court with me. See below. You can forward this whole email.

4) DONATE! – It is likely we will need to post a bond if the motion for injunction is granted (to cover any damages in the case that PERC does not find for our complaint – doubtful, but always possible). I have my two veteran fund raisers on alert to set up a PAYPAL donate button so that you can donate to the bond fund. If the motion is either denied or if it is granted and PERC upholds it, the donated money can go to pay for any legal fees accrued or donated to further legal action or a charity (you can comment on your donation what you would like it to go toward if the bond is unnecessary).

I hope you will share this email with your colleagues who are concerned about the IPEGS evaluation system and the manner in which UTD is manipulating you.

I have filed a motion for injunction against the implementation of the IPEGS evaluation model that was supposedly ratified by bargaining unit members Aug 29-31 and accepted by unanimous vote by the School Board in their passage of Agenda Item D-22 this past Wed. Sept. 7th, 2011. The motion can be seen here:

http://shawnbeightol.com/AmendedMotionforInjunctiveordervsboardvote.pdf

I hope to have press present so that you can share with them your opinion on these issues.

Furthermore, I need official witnesses that will testify to one or more of the following:

a) that you do not know and did not receive advance notice of the formula upon which the RTTT performance pay would be assigned for last year’s work (you would need to have been appraised of the formula BEFORE the year for it to function as MERIT pay),

b) that you have reason to believe you cannot contend for the MERIT pay on equal grounds as other teachers/employees,

c) that you will be hurt by PERC’s reversal of the union ratification vote which would result in the return of any performance monies (are you in financial difficulties and will need to pay the mortgage or something else so that upon reversal, your financial status will be jeapordized),

d) that you will be hurt by PERC’s reversal of the union ratification vote which will result in nullification of a positive evaluation based on the new IPEGS formula,

e) that you will be hurt by PERCs reversal of the union ratification vote which will come too late to correct negative consequences of a poor evaluation based on the new IPEGS formula,

or

f) that you will be hurt by the changes to IPEGS, distribution of performance pay or the reversal of these in some other manner that you can specify.

If you can testify to any of a) – f) above and are willing to give testimony (in person, by affidavit, or by telephone), I need to know ASAP to prepare. – tell me specifically

I would like to invite you to exercise your right to take a personal (not sick) day to attend the hearing at the judge’s chambers (11:45 AM, room 511, 73 West Flagler St, Miami, FL – the old downtown courthouse) to show support and perhaps to offer your opinion as to the clarity (or lack thereof) and lack of advanced sufficient notification regarding the ratification vote conducted by UTD between Aug 29-31 2011.

I understand many of you are angry about the terms of the formula by which you will be evaluated. Unfortunately, that isn’t our best chance to win the motion for injunction, that is a matter of collective bargaining and you must do your best to collectively communicate your desires to your bargaining agent.

My strategy is simple. Florida law requires some basic, minimum consideration and language in ratification vote notification: physically posting the information, mailing it, advertising it in news media; providing sufficient time to study the impact of the contract changes; and stating on the notice that the vote is open to all unit members (not just dues paying members). UTD did not do this so I filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). Due to the obvious violations of the State laws, I believe UTD will be found guilty of this ULP and it will be ordered to be reversed and reconducted. This cannot occur due to scheduling until after the target date for distribution of performance pay until after September 30th. This will result in MDCPS having to reverse the distribution of the $14 million until a legally ratified method can be obtained.

My motion to the 11th Circuit Court of Florida (which has jurisdiction over such labor matters when timing is of essence) is to stop the implementation of D22 so that this hardship is not imposed on the teachers and on the district budget.

I believe there is sufficient merit and logic to my approach. Apparently the judge does too since he granted the hearing upon reviewing my motion.

It is one thing to blog, to facebook, to complain in the halls. These actions are not effective. Even bending the ear of administrators has not been effective. It only works to stall and distract us from the obvious.

I hope you will call, email or text me so we can discuss this situation. If you are already receiving my home emails, then I don’t need you to contact me if you want to attend the hearing. I will be sending out information via my usual channels, including my website: www.shawnbeightol.com

Thanks, and regards,

Shawn Beightol

beights@yahoo.com

p.s. below is my follow up letter to the school board after this Wednesday’s board meeting. I sent it through board attorney’s since my lawsuit is against the school board right now (btw, the lawsuit is non-punitive; it merely asks the courts to stop the implementation of D22 until we can conduct a legal ratification vote).

Dear Sirs and Madams:

Yesterday in the board meeting I started off my 2 min speech with a question:

“Has MDCPS been granted the exemption from compliance with F.S. 1012.34 as described in 1012.341 on the basis of the Race To the Top Memo of Understanding? I ask because this affects the latitude we have in how much weight we assign the student performance for different classes of educators.”

The actual statutory language is “1012.341 Exemption from performance evaluation system and compensation and salary schedule requirements.— (1)…a school district that received an exemption under Florida’s Race to the Top Memorandum of Understanding for Phase 2, as provided in s. (D)(2)(ii) of the memorandum, is allowed to base 40 percent, instead of 50 percent, of instructional personnel and school administrator performance evaluations upon student learning growth under s. 1012.34, as amended by this act.”

Did anyone find the answer to that question?

Also, here’s an example of an alternative that looks like it actually measures a teacher on his/her merit: http://suwannee.schooldesk.net/Portals/Suwannee/District/docs/Curriculum/SUWANNEE%20Teacher%20Evaluation%20Plan.pdf

Note that it makes provision for non-FCAT teachers by looking at things like AP scores, ACT/SAT scores, and industry certifications.

I’m sure you know that the current model you ratified yesterday has been compared to certain aspects of communism? Basing an individual’s pay, not on his own merit, but on the collective, cooperative efforts (or non-efforts) of others…

Ms. Linda DeMarsh of the Senate Education Committee had told me that plenty of alternatives existed to the fuzzy school average of reading proficiencies.

I know this is just one example and it probably has some faults to it, but just imagine what we could have done if we could have involved the professional teachers that still work for MDCPS (these are probably the ones who reacted with such shock to the IPEGs video and started this whole conversation off on Facebook the day after we saw the video – August 19th)

And, by the way, to my knowledge, my motion for an injunction against the implementation of D-22 is scheduled for a hearing. The date, time and location were written on the Notice of Hearing that was a part of the summons your attorney received yesterday before the School Board Meeting. I’m not sure why he told you right before you voted that it wasn’t scheduled for a hearing.

Please know that I support you in what you are trying to do. My concern is that beneath the surface of the policies and machinations is the underlying belief that teachers, parents, and children are merely chess pieces to be moved around on the chessboard-like display of someone’s Excel spreadsheet.

You can imagine my surprise when I discovered the RTTT language in the 120 page document submitted to the State that says “the two most important factors impacting student achievement are, first, the quality of the classroom teacher, followed only by the quality of the school principal.” (http://www.fldoe.org/arra/pdf/Dade.pdf , p.3).

Diane Ravitch says this statement is based on poor research by William Sanders “a statistician at the University of Tennessee , whose previous work was in agriculture, manufacturing, and engineering. Drawing on past studies rather than on visits to classrooms,” Diane goes on to say ”This is contrary to much research that suggests levels of poverty, health, parental education, and peer influences have equal or greater impact – “The Death and Life of the Great American School System,” Diane Ravitch).

Add to this the circumstantial evidence of such things as un/under noticed ratification votes, pre-scheduled NEW IPEGS training seminars (scheduled, announced, and conducted BEFORE the ratification vote), and the Professional Development Video that was shown as though the IPEGS changes were FACT August 19th before the ratification vote, and it begins to feel like we teachers as professional individuals are really not wanted. That we might actually be getting in the way with our professional, classroom-based opinions and observations.

Regards,

Shawn Beightol

Dear Colleagues:

I believe my “Unfair Labor Practice” complaint (CB-11-073) filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) will result in the overturning of the contract change ratification vote results being collected currently through UTD’s poorly advertised Evote.

I believe this not a desirable outcome for either UTD or for MDCPS.

It is not my intent to merely interfere or disrupt.

I am seeking to allow professionals the opportunity to be evaluated fairly and equally on the basis of our own work, not on the fuzzy school average of student reading proficiency currently being proposed as a means to measure teacher effectiveness for non-FCAT teachers.

I have sent word to MDCPS and UTD that I am willing to settle immediately to allow MDCPS and UTD time to meet a looming deadline pertaining to a related Race to the Top (RTTT) requirement (that affects the receipt and dispersal of $14-17 million RTTT performance pay funds for LAST year’s student performance).

What I am considering in return for the retraction of my complaint is

1.    An avenue for open communication amongst teachers/bargaining unit members to allow for discussion and debate about related work matters – without fear of reprisal or punishment.

2.      An immediate convening of sufficient “Focus Groups” to represent the bargaining unit members not measured by FCAT to consider and propose alternatives to the current language of “reading proficiency.” These groups could/should be the NBCT teachers/groups, the Dade County Science Teachers Association, the Dade Art Educators Association, Miami-Dade Council for the Social Studies, Dade Counseling Association, the Florida Bandmasters Association (district 16), and other related PROFESSIONAL associations representing PROFESSIONAL educators in MDCPS. PLEASE SUGGEST OTHERS TO ME! ← Other School Districts have already established alternative measures – we just need to research, evaluate, and agree within each of our disciplines on the appropriate measure for each group.

3.   PERC supervised implementation of the agreed upon changes to the IPEGS formula and PERC censure of the UTD to prevent such inappropriate ratification strategies in the future (it has happened twice this year to my knowledge, see (http://pdfs.dadeschools.net/Bdarch/2011/Bd061511/agenda/D22.PDF ) – do you remember being notified of this vote? Do you remember voting down your salary increase for the year?

What I need from you:

1. I need you to pass this letter along to your colleagues.
2. I need input as to the names of appropriate professional associations representing different types of teachers and bargaining unit members to be involved in the conversation
3. I need your ideas as to how we could measure your effectiveness based on student performance – what measure should we use? SB 736 requires 50% of your evaluation come from your student performance – how should we measure that?

This needs to happen this week.

Thanks and Regards,

Shawn Beightol

beights@yahoo.com

www.shawnbeightol.com

Monday mornings IPEGS vote is illegal.  See below for reasons.  See here for Florida Administrative Code regulating public employee union ratification procedures:
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readFile.asp?sid=0&tid=1882496&type=1&file=60CC-4.002.doc

forward this to all your teacher friends:

Please send the following to Karen Aronowitz and UTD by copying and pasting the following to the respective/appropriate boxes of your email software:

to the address (TO:) box:

Michael@utd.org; Artie@utd.org; karen@utd.org; Fedrick@utd.org

to the body of the email:

Karen, Artie, Fedrick, and Michael:

________(your name)______ and employee ID #